Section 154 of Criminal Code of Procedure

1. What is an F.I.R?
2. A first information report (FIR) is a document prepared by police organisations in South Asian and Southeast
Asian countries including Myanmar, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan when they receive information about the
commission of a cognisable offence, or in Singapore when the police receives information about any criminal offence. It
generally stems from a complaint lodged with the police by the victim of a cognisable offence or by someone on his or her
behalf, but anyone can make such a report either orally or in writing to the police. Police investigation follows most FIRs.

First Information Report is a written document prepared by the Police

when they receive information about the commission of cognizable
offence. It is a report of information that reaches the police first in point
of time and that is why it is called the first Information Report.

It is generally a complaint lodged with the police by the victim of a

cognizable offence or by someone on his/her behalf.

Anyone can report the commission of a cognizable offence either orally or

in writing to the police. Even a telephonic message can be treated as an
F.I.R.

3. Kind of F.I.R?
Kinds of F.I.R

_______________________________________________________________

Victim Accused Third Person Police Authority (Suo Motu) Court

 Cognizable Offence

Cognizable Offence is one In which the police may arrest a person

without warrant. They are authorized to start investigation into a
cognizable case on their own and do not require any orders from
the court to do so.

 Non-Cognizable Offence

A Non-cognizable Offence is an offence which a police officer has

no authority to arrest without warrant. The Police cannot
investigate. The police cannot investigate such an offence.

4. Why is F.I.R Important?

 An F.I.R is a very important document as it sets the process of criminal
justice in motion. It is only after the F.I.R is registered in the police
station that the police takes up investigation of the case.

5. Who can lodge an F.I.R?

Anyone who knows about the commission of a cognizable offence can file
an F.I.R. It is not necessary that only the victim of the crime should file
an F.I.R. A police officer who come to know about a cognizable offence
can file an F.I.R himself or herself.

You can file an F.I.R if:

i. You are the person against whom the offence has been committed;

ii. You Know yourself about an offence which has been committed;

iii. You have seen the offence being committed.

6. What is the Procedure of filling an F.I.R?

The procedure of filling an F.I.R is prescribed in Section 154 of the

Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973.
 When information about the commission of a cognizable offence is
given orally, the Police must write it down.
 It is your right as a person giving information or making a
complaint to demand that the information recorded by the police is
read over to you.
 Once the information has been recorded by the police , it must be
signed by the person giving the information.
 You should sign the report only after verifying that the information
recorded by the police is as per the details given by you.
 People who cannot read or write must put their left thumb
impression on the document after being satisfied that it is a correct
record.
 Always ask for a copy of the F.I.R. if the police do not give it to you.
It is your right to get it free of cost.

7. What should you mention in the F.I.R?

  Your name and address;
 Date, time and location of the incident you are reporting;
 The true facts of the incident as they occurred;
 Names and descriptions of the persons involved in the incident;
 Witnesses if any.

8. Thing you should not do.

 Never file a false complaint or give wrong information to the police.

you can be prosecuted under law for giving wrong information or
for misleading the police.
(Section 203, Indian Penal Code)

 Never exaggerate or distort.

 Never make vague or unclear statements.

9. What can you do if your F.I.R is not registered?

 You can meet the superintendent of police or other higher officers

like Deputy Inspector General of police and Inspector General of
Police and bring you complaint to their notice.

 You can send your complaint in writing and by post to the

superintendent of police concerned. If the superintendent of police
is satisfied with you complaint, he shall either investigate the case
himself or order an investigation to be made.

 You can file private complaint before the court having jurisdiction.

 You can also make a complaint to the state Human Rights

Commission or the national human rights commission if the police
does nothing to enforce the law or does it in a biased and corrupt
manner

JUDGMENT
Lalita Kumari Versus Govt. of U.P. & Ors. has propounded the principles and
law relating to registration of F.I.R. ( First Information Report) as under
 i. Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, if the information discloses commission of a
cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a
situation.
ii. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but
indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be
conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or
not.
iii. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR
must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing
the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to
the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must
disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding
further.
iv. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable
offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do
not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable
offence.
v. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise
of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information
reveals any cognizable offence.
vi. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be
conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The
category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as
under:

a. Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes

b. Commercial offences
c. Medical negligence cases
d. Corruption cases
e. Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal
prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the
matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions
which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

vii. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the
complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in
any case it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional
 cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks time is provided. The fact of
such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary
entry." (This direction has been modified by the Supreme Court by the
order).
viii. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all
information received in a police station, we direct that all information
relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or
leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in
the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must
also be reflected, as mentioned above.

Parbatbhai Aahir & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.

A full bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice AM Khanwilkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice DY Chandrachud has laid
down broad principles from various precedents in relation to Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for quashing of First Information Reports
(FIRs) in the judgment passed in an appeal against a decision of the Gujarat
High Court.

The Gujarat High Court vide its judgment dated November 25, 2016, had
dismissed an application under Section 482 of CrPC filed by the Appellants
seeking quashing of FIR registered against them on June 18, 2016 with the
City 'C' Division Police Station, District Jamnagar, Gujarat for offences
punishable under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Indian
Penal Code.

Before, the High Court, the plea for quashing the FIR was advanced on the
ground that the Appellants had amicably settled the dispute with the
Complainant, who had also filed an Affidavit to that effect. On behalf of the
prosecution, application for quashing was opposed on two grounds:

i. The Appellants were absconding and warrants had been issued against
them under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
ii. The Appellants had criminal antecedants.

The High Court observed that it had been given "a fair idea" about the modus
operandi adopted by the Appellants for grabbing the land, in the course of
which they had opened bogus bank accounts. The High Court held that the
case involves extortion, forgery and conspiracy and all the Appellants have
acted as a team. Hence, in the view of the High Court, it was not in the interest
of society at large to accept the settlement and quash the FIR. The High Court
held that the charges are of a serious nature and the activities of the appellants
render them a potential threat to society. On this ground, the prayer to quash
the First Information Report was rejected by the High Court.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court after discussing various precedents on the subject
summarized the following broad principles in relation to Section 482 for
quashing FIRs.

i. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent
an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The
provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves
powers which inhere in the High Court;
 ii. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a First
Information Report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a
settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not
the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of
compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of
the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is
attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable.
iii. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should
be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High
Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the
exercise of the inherent power;
iv. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and
plenitude it has to be exercised;

a. to secure the ends of justice or

b. to prevent an abuse of the process of any court;
v. The decision as to whether a complaint or First Information Report
should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have
settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of
each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated;
vi. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a
plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due
regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious
offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and
dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family
of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking,
not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The
decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the
overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious
offences;
vii. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases
which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute.
They stand on a distinct footing in so far as the exercise of the inherent
power to quash is concerned;
viii. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial,
mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil
flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties
have settled the dispute;
ix. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in
view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a
conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would
cause oppression and prejudice; and
x. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions (viii) and
(ix) above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-
being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a
mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be
justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an
activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The
consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance.

The Apex Court dismissed the appeal holding that the High Court was justified
in declining to entertain the Application for quashing FIR in the exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

In view of the above expositions, it has been clearly held by the Apex Court that
the High Court while exercising its power under Section 482 and dealing with a
plea that the dispute has been settled, the Court must have due regard to the
nature and gravity of the Offence. Further, it has been observed heinous and
serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape
and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of
the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not
private in nature but have a serious impact upon society.

ZERO F.I.R

The notion of Zero FIR is to institute a jurisdiction free FIR. It was introduced
by the recommendation of the Justice Verma Committee in the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 2013 after the ghastly Delhi rape case.The Amendment was
passed by the Lok Sabha on 19 March, 2013 and by the Rajya Sabha on 21
March, 2013 and received the President’s assent on 2 April, 2013 and is
deemed to have come into force from the 3rd day of February, 2013.The 2012
Rape case led to several legal consequences through the Criminal Law
Amendment, one of which was the concept of Zero FIR.

Registering an FIR was made mandatory for the police after the
Amendment. ‘No police officer can refuse to register an FIR, if the offence
being reported occurred outside their police station’s jurisdiction. He/ She is
bound to register the FIR (this is called a zero FIR) and forward it to the
concerned police station.’[iii]

Generally when a police station registers an FIR, the police officer awards each
FIR a serial number and registers it. But, in case of a Zero FIR, the FIR doesn’t
get numbered or gets numbered as ‘0’. Upon registering it in a police station
other than the jurisdictional police station, it gets transferred to the station
with competent jurisdiction after conducting a preface investigation.[iv] This is
how it gets the name ‘Zero’ FIR.

Definition of Zero FIR:

An FIR that can be filed at any police station irrespective of the place of crime
and area of jurisdiction is referred to as a Zero FIR. The FIR that is registered
at the police station regardless of place of incidence or jurisdiction will later be
transferred to the police station that has competent jurisdiction upon
conducting preliminary investigation.

The police cannot claim ‘lack of jurisdiction’ to register an FIR and they are
also urged to conduct a prelude investigation despite lack of jurisdiction. This
is done in order to ensure that the evidence in certain cases involving offences
of Sexual abuse or Road accidents is collected at the right time and isn’t lost.
Protection of evidence from manipulation and corruption is extremely vital in
such situations, therefore the concept of Zero FIR becomes beneficial. Crimes
like murder, rape and accidents require immediate action from the concerned
police authorities so that they take appropriate samples, eye witnesses and
other circumstantial details. Zero FIR allows the authorities to pen down the
initial action taken rather than trying to figure out what had happened at the
crime scene initially.[v]

In the case of Kirti Vashisht v. State &Ors., The Delhi High Court observed

as follows,

“As per section 154 Cr.P.C., if any information relating to the commission of a

cognizable offence is received by any Police Station, the said Police Station is
duty bound to register the FIR. However, if the crime is not occurred in the
jurisdiction of the said Police Station, then after registering the ‘Zero FIR’, the
same has to be transferred to the concerned Police Station for investigation,
where the offence has been committed… A Zero FIR can be filed in any police
station by the victim, irrespective of their residence or the place of occurrence of
crime.”

It also directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to issue circular/Standing

order to all the Police Stations in NCT of Delhi and all concerned that “if
complaint of cognizable offence is received in a Police Station, and offence
occurred in jurisdiction of other Police Station, in that case, the ‘Zero FIR’ shall be
lodged by the Police Station which has received the complaint and thereafter
shall be transferred to the concerned Police Station.”[vi]

Legal provisions for Zero FIR:

There is no explicit provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to

accommodate Zero FIR.

However, Section 460 of the Code talks about ‘Irregularities which do not
vitiate proceedings’, Clause (e) of the section states that If any
Magistrate is not empowered by law to take cognizance of an offence
under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 190 and
takes a cognizance of the offence irrespective of this, such a proceeding
shall not be set aside merely on the ground that the Magistrate did not
have jurisdiction to entertain the same.
Under clause (c) of section 166A[vii] of Indian Penal Code, if any public
servant fails to record any information given to him under sub-section
(1) of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation
to cognizable offence … shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may
extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.

What is the procedure to file a Zero FIR?

A Zero FIR is filed just like any other FIR. It can be filed by complying with the
provisions of Section 154 of the Code.

If the information is given orally, it should be reduced to writing.

If it is in writing, it shall be signed by the Informant.
The information shall be read over to the Informant so it can be verified.
It shall then be recorded in the ‘station house diary’ or ‘case diary’ as
prescribed by the State government.
The copy of the information as taken down in writing shall be given to
the Informant free of cost.

Conclusion:

Zero FIR is therefore a free jurisdictional FIR. It ensures that persons with
information regarding commission of a cognizable offence are sufficiently heard
and are not turned down with the excuse of ‘lack of jurisdiction’. It also
ensures that everything possible is sufficiently done by a Police officer towards
securing justice for the victims of the alleged offence. No complaint can be
dismissed merely on the ground of a police station not being within the
jurisdictional limits of the place of commission of an offence. This secures
collection of evidence in cases where immediate attention by the police is
required.
First Information Report (FIR) has not been defined in the Cr.P.C. FIR means
first time reporting of information to the police regarding commission of the
cognizable offence. By this criminal law comes into motion.

Ravi Kumar vs. State of Punjab2 (SC, March 4, 2005)

Hon‟ble Justice Arijit Pasayat said “The First Information Report is a report
giving information of the commission of a cognizable crime which may be made
by the complainant or by any other person knowing about the commission of
such an offence. It is intended to set the criminal law in motion. Any
information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is required to be
reduced to writing by the officer-in-charge of the Police Station which has to be
signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof is required to be
entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State
Government may prescribe in that behalf. The registration of the FIR empowers
the officer-in-charge of the Police Station to commence an investigation with
respect to the crime reported to him. A copy of the FIR is required to be sent
forthwith to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence.”

Essential ingredients of FIR

There are following essential ingredients of FIR under section 154 –

 Information-  There should be information

 Cognizable Offence-That information must be related to the commission
of cognizable offences,
 Officer in charge of a police station and woman police officer or
any woman officer –It must be made to the officer in charge of a police
station. If the informant is the victim (woman) of acid attack, the outrage
of modesty, rape or word uttered to insult outrage the modesty then such
information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman
officer. If the victim is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically
disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at
the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a
convenient place of such person‟s choice, in the presence of an
interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be. The recording of
such information shall be video graphed.
  Oral or written – It may be given either orally or written form. If it is
given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to
writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant.

 Signature of informant– Every such information, whether given in

writing or reduced to writing (oral information) as aforesaid, shall be
signed by the person giving it (informant), and

 Entering of substance in book –  The substance the information shall

be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State
Government may prescribe in this behalf.

Contents of FIR

In the case of Gorle S. Naidu vs. State of A.P. and Ors. (Dec. 15, 2003, SC)
Hon‟ble Justice Arijit Pasayat said, “The FIR is not supposed to an
encyclopedia of the factors concerning the crime, yet there must be some
definite information vis- a- vis (along with) the crime.”

In the case of Ravi Kumar vs. State of Punjab 3 (SC, 2005,) Hon‟ble Justice Arijit
Pasayat said “It is not the requirement of law that the minutest details be
recorded in the FIR lodged immediately after the occurrence.”

Kinds of FIR
 

Lalita Kumari Case – In the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.4 Supreme

Court said that the Code contemplates two kinds of FIRs. namely (1) FIR under
section 154 (1) and (2) FIR under section 157(1). The duly signed FIR under
Section 154(1) is by the informant to the concerned officer at the police station.
The second kind of FIR could be which is registered by the police itself on any
information received or other than by way of an informant Section 157(1) and
even this information has to be duly recorded and the copy should be sent to
the Magistrate forthwith.

Jurisdiction – Every police station has own territorial jurisdiction. If

cognizable offence is committed within territorial jurisdiction then FIR is
registered and it contains date, time and place of occurrence, serial
number etc.

Zero FIR – Zero FIR can be registered by any Officer in charge of Police Station
even he has no jurisdiction for investigation the offence. In such FIR serial
number is put Zero and such FIR is forwarded to competent investigating
police station.
In case of Aasaram Bapu Rape case rape was committed in Jodhpur, Rajsthan.
FIR was lodged in Kamla Market Police Station, New Delhi. This was the „Zero
FIR‟. It was transferred to Jodhpur for investigation.

Manoj Sharma Manu v.  State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Delhi H.C.13 April,
2017)

In this case alleged offence against girl was occurred sector 11, Noida and not
within the jurisdiction of PS New Ashok Nagar, New Delhi. By using section
156(3) Metropolitan Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction over the area of
PS New Ashok Nagar directed SHO PS New Ashok Nagar to register zero FIR
and thereafter to transfer the same to the concerned Police Station having
jurisdiction in the matter as per procedure.

Delhi High Court quashed the order of Metropolitan Magistrate and held that
section 154(1) is different from section 156(3). Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C. unlike
section 156(3) does not prescribe for a restriction on registration of FIR in
respect of an offence committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the police
station. Thus even if the offence may have been committed beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of a police station, the officer-in-charge of the police station would
still register the FIR and investigate thereon, however, a Magistrate under
section 156(3) cannot direct to an officer-in-charge of a police station beyond its
territorial jurisdiction.

Judicial Magistrate cannot pass an order for Zero FIR by using section 156(3).
Order of Judicial Magistrate was quashed. Officer-in-charge of the police
station shall register the FIR in case of need.

Territorial Jurisdiction of P.S. and FIR

State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Punati Ramulu and Others (SC 19 Feb., 1993)

Section 154 does not say anything regarding territorial jurisdiction. The police
constable at the police station refused to record FIR on the ground that the
said police station had no territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime.
In this case Supreme Court “It was certainly a dereliction of duty on the part of
the constable because any lack of territorial jurisdiction could not have
prevented the constable from recording information about the cognizable
offence and forwarding the same to the police station having jurisdiction over
the area in which the crime was said to have been committed.”

Telephonic Message

Cryptic telephonic message cannot constitute FIR.

Tapinder Singh vs. State Of Punjab (SC May 7, 1970)

Facts- The person, giving the information on telephone, did not disclose his
identity; nor did he give any further particulars. When the police officer
receiving the telephone message made further enquiries from him he
disconnected the telephone. This report was entered in the daily diary at 5.35
p.m.

Held – The telephonic message recorded in the daily diary of the police station
was a cryptic and anonymous oral message which did not in terms clearly
specify a cognizable offence and could not, therefore, be treated as first
information report. The mere fact that this information was the first in point of
time could not by itself clothe it with the character of first information report.
The question of whether or not a particular document constitutes a first
information report has to be determined on the relevant facts and
circumstances of each case.

Advantage of immediate registration of FIR

The registration of FIR either on the basis of the information furnished by the
informant under Section 154(1) of the Code or otherwise under Section 157(1)
of the Code is obligatory. The obligation to register FIR has inherent
advantages: (a) It is the first step to access to justice for a victim. (b) It upholds
the Rule of Law inasmuch as the ordinary person brings forth the commission
of a cognizable crime in the knowledge of the State. (c) It also facilitates swift
investigation and sometimes even prevention of the crime. In both cases, it only
effectuates the regime of law. (d) It leads to less manipulation in criminal cases
and lessens incidents of ante-dates FIR or deliberately delayed FIR.
 

Delay in lodging FIR

Delay in lodging FIR shall not affect credibility of FIR if there are justified
reasons. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gyan Chand (May 1,
2001SC). In this case Supreme Court observed, “Delay in lodging the FIR
cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and
discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the first
information report. Delay has the effect of putting the Court in its guard to
search if any explanation has been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether
it is satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the
delay and there is possibility of embellishment in prosecution version on
account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution. However, if
the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself
be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case.”

Uploading of FIR on police website or official website of Government

concerned

Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India and Others (Sep.7,

2016SC) (CJI Dipak Misra Justice C. Nagappan).

In this case Supreme Court issued directions –

(1)FIR on website within 24, 48, 72hours –The copies of the FIRs, unless
the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to
insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and
such other offences, should be uploaded on the police website, and if there is
no such website,  on the official website of the State Government,
within twenty-four hours of the registration of the First Information Report so
that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR
and file appropriate application before the Court as per law for redressal of his
grievances. It may be clarified here that in case there is connectivity problems
due to geographical location or there is some other unavoidable difficulty, the
time can be extended up to forty-eight hours. The said 48 hours can be
extended maximum up to 72 hours and it is only relatable to connectivity
problems due to geographical location.
  DSP shall decide sensitive nature – The decision not to upload the copy
of the FIR on the website shall not be taken by an officer below the rank
of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any person holding equivalent
post. In case, the States where District Magistrate has a role, he may
also assume the said authority. A decision taken by the concerned police
officer or the District Magistrate shall be duly communicated to the
concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.

 Not ground for anticipatory bail- If an FIR is not uploaded, needless to

say, it shall not ensure per se a ground to obtain the benefit under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

 Supply of copy of FIR to accused – An accused is entitled to get a copy

of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed
under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. Question 1(LL.B. DU 2017) – What is
first information report? Whether a police officer who receives any
information under section 154 or comes to know otherwise under section
157 is under an obligation to register an FIR or does he or she have
discretion to conduct preliminary inquiry? Explain in the light of the
case Lalita Kumari Govt. of U.P.(2013).

Answer – Optional vs. Mandatory Registration of FIR

What FIR is has been already discussed above. In the case of Lalita
Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.5 Supreme Court laid down following proposition –

 Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the

information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no
preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
 If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but
indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be
conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or
not.
 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR
must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing
the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to
the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must
disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding
further.
  The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable
offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do
not register the FIR if the information received by him discloses a
cognizable offence.
 The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise
of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information
reveals any cognizable offence.

 As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be

conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The
categories of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as
under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal

prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for the delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which
may warrant preliminary inquiry.

 While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the
complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in
any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the
causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
 Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all
information received in a police station, we direct that all information
relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or
leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in
the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must
also be reflected, as mentioned above.
 

Evidentiary Value of FIR

Aghnoo Nagesia  vs. State of Bihar  (SC, 4 May, 1965)

In the case of Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar Supreme Court observed,

“Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the recording of the
first information. (1) The information report as such is not substantive
evidence. (2) It may be used to corroborate the informant under Section
157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict him under Section 145 of the Act, if
the informant is called as a witness. (3) If the first information is given by the
accused himself, the fact of his giving the information is admissible against
him as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 (MP PSC) of the Evidence
Art. (4) If the information is a non-confessional statement, it is admissible
against the accused as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act
and is relevant. (5) But a confessional first information report to a police
officer cannot be used against the accused in view of Section 25 of the
Evidence Act.”

Pancham Yadav v.  State of U.P.  (All. H.C. 1993)

Information of victim was recorded as FIR. Later on he died. This FIR was also
treated as a dying declaration under section 32(1) of Indian Evidence Act,
1872. This is the only circumstances when FIR becomes substantive piece of
evidence.

Shayam Nandan Singh and Ors. vs. The State Of Bihar  (9 May, 1991) FIR
was also treated as res gestae and it was also relevant under section 6 of IEA.

Ravi Kumar vs. State of Punjab (SC, March 4, 2005) Division Bench

Hon‟ble Justice Arijit Pasayat said “It has been held time and again that the
FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate
the statement of the maker under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
or to contradict him under Section 145 of that Act. It can neither be used as
evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes an accused nor to
corroborate or contradict other witnesses.”

Alternate remedy in case of non-registration of FIR under Sec. 154(1)

Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. ( SC, Dec.07, 2007)

In the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. Justice Markandey Katju said, “If a
person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police
station under section 154(1) his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent
of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in
Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the
officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can
approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the
High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section
200 Cr.P.C. …..
It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it
is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court
should not ordinarily interfere. He can approach High Court either through
section 482 or with writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
No doubt the Magistrate cannot order under section 156 (3) investigation by
the CBI. But Supreme Court or the High Court has power under Article 136 or
Article 226 to order investigation by the CBI.

Art. 226 (Writ Jurisdiction of High Court. Writ u/ 32 is also possible)

↑
Sec. 482 (Inherent Power of H.C.)

↑
Sec. 200 (Judicial Magistrate)

↑
Sec. 156(3) (Judicial Magistrate)

↑
Sec. 36 (Police Officers superior to O.P.S e.g. DIG, IG, DGP)

↑
Sec. 154(3) (Superintendent of Police)

↑
Sec. 154(1) (Officer in charge of a police station)

Alternate remedy in case of non-registration of FIR under sec. 154(1)

(Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.2007 SC)

*Failure in the lodging of FIR by public servants in certain cases is

punishable under section 166A (c) of IPC. For this failure minimum
punishment is 6 months rigorous imprisonment and maximum
punishment is 2 yrs. Section 166A was inserted by Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act 2013

FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailCopy LinkShare
Indian Legal Solution